Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Is Hillary Clinton being mentored by Rod Parsley? They both use the term "obliterate" when referring to Iran and Islam. Could her rough and tough rhetoric become an albatross as heavy as Jeremiah Wright?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton's muscular talk on Iran puts her well to the right of her Democratic challenger Barack Obama in their heated White House rivalry, but could also presage a new US policy of containment.

Clinton on Monday stood by her threat made last month to "obliterate" the Islamic republic should it use nuclear weapons on Israel, whose U.S. backers form one important constituency in the Democratic nominating race.

Obama accused the New York senator of taking a page out of President George W. Bush's assertive foreign policy, but Clinton herself insists she is not being bellicose, but rather trying to deter Iran from taking a step too far.

Sorry, Hillary, but you are being bellicose and trying to prove how butch you would be if elected President. Unfortunately, this stance is not what America needs right now. Bush "obliterated" the image of the U.S. in the eyes of the world with his "cowboy" diplomacy (which is, in fact, no diplomacy). How many other nations need to be obliterated?

Clinton has fallen for what people used to call The Myth of the Masculine Privilege. She wants Americans to see her as a fully male president in order to skirt the feminist issue. This is a trap set by Republicans: "play up the strong woman facade so that she'll embrace the War in Iraq and seem no different than George Bush. "

I think the trap worked.

Now Clinton seems as vengeful as McCain's own mentor, Rod Parsley, who wants America to wake up and smell the the charred flesh of Muslims:

I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

And with all this talk of genocide, candidates (as well as their preachers) show very little sense of history. Ignoring history can be just as harmful as revisionist history. When we speak of annihilating people, many Americans suddenly develop ADD: we obliterated Native Americans and their source of food. One hundred thirty-one years ago (today), Chief Crazy Horse surrendered to U.S. Troops. The Sioux then trekked the Trail of Tears to the alien Oklahoma Territory.

We almost exterminated many Chinese-Americans with our Chinese Exclusion Act (see sidebar This Day in History): for well over sixty years, we not only prohibited Chinese from immigrating to the U.S., but prohibited the ones who were here from bringing over their families. Like many migrant laborers today, Chinese were given jobs Americans did not want to do: they had to dig their own graves - troughs alongside the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad.

Of course, Clinton was talking about nuclear genocide.

I wonder, however: what's the difference?

And the genocide continues: every year 1500 bison thatstray from Yellowstone Park in search of food aredestroyed.A bas relief celebrating the victory of whitesettlers over Native Americans